Pueblo v. Sanders, 20244
Decision Date | 17 December 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 20244,20244 |
Citation | 151 Colo. 216,376 P.2d 996 |
Parties | PUEBLO, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Floyd E. SANDERS, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Gordon D. Hinds, John R. Naylor, II, Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
Sanders was charged and convicted in the municipal court of Pueblo with violating the following municipal ordinance:
Sanders perfected an appeal to the county court of Pueblo County, where upon trial de novo a jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Over objections interposed by Pueblo the following instructions, inter alia, were read to the jury:
'What Constitutes a Crime--A crime or misdemeanor consists in a violation of a public law in the commission of which there shall be an union or joint operation of act, intention or criminal negligence.
By writ of error Pueblo seeks disapproval of the giving of these instructions. In its brief Pueblo states that 'we will treat a prosecution for an ordinance violation in all respects the same as though it were a prosecution for a violation of a criminal statute'. There is no appearance for Sanders in this Court.
The matter being in this posture, we now hold that instructions numbered seven and eight are not subject to challenge, though the instruction numbered nine is disapproved.
See 43 A.L.R. 2nd, pp. 518 and 519, where it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
APE v. People, No. 99SC392.
...language had been construed by this court as not requiring proof of intent to use the object as a weapon. Pueblo v. Sanders, 151 Colo. 216, 217-18, 376 P.2d 996, 997 (1962) (construing Pueblo municipal ordinance). However, when the statute was repealed and reenacted in 1971, the new provisi......
-
Maraggos v. People
...read from his acts, his conduct, and the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the circumstances of the case. See Pueblo v. Sanders, 151 Colo. 216, 376 P.2d 996. The general rule which we find to be supported by reason and logic is that where one breaks and enters into the property ......
-
State v. Lassley
...on one's person. (94 C.J.S. Weapons § 5, pp. 482, 483; 79 Am.Jur.2d, Weapons and Firearms, § 15, p. 20.) See also Pueblo v. Sanders, 151 Colo. 216, 376 P.2d 996; People v. Foster, 32 Ill.App.2d 462, 178 N.E.2d 402; State v. Hovis, 135 Mo.App. 544, 116 S.W. In State v. Jordan, 495 S.W.2d 717......
-
People v. Vincent, 81SA111
...the time that he rules on the defendant's motion to suppress. DeHerrera v. People, 160 Colo. 96, 413 P.2d 900 (1966); Pueblo v. Sanders, 151 Colo. 216, 376 P.2d 996 (1962); McCray v. Denver, 144 Colo. 1, 354 P.2d 585 Accordingly, we reverse the trial judge's order suppressing the firearm se......